Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sinistar]

I'd like to think that character creation should be significant part in away so that YOU, the player, would feel connected to that character and pretend to be him/her/it. And so you role-play that character.

The more character creation is limited, the greater care should be given to other game elements, IMHO. At least if we are talking RPG.

I'll take Baldur's Gate and Oblivion again - first has rigid class system with predefined skills you get with leveling up and you do so with gaining magical numerical units called exp. Second let's you customize your class, level up whichever ability you wish anytime you want, you are limited only by YOUR self-imposed RP limits.
In one of this games, it does makes a difference how you play it (what kind of choices you make), in the other the world just doesn't care.

[GlyphGryph]

If it had no sort of player-choice-driven character development at all beyond the initial character creation, I'm not convinced anyone would buy it being "an rpg".

As I mentioned, I can think of a number of games that allow you to do this, but I can't think of any that most people would be willing to qualify as RPGs.

Even if it's not mechanical leveling and progression, there's gotta be something, or you're gonna have trouble convincing people you belong in the RPG genre, as far as I can tell. Counter-examples welcome.

Also, Sinistar,

I'd like to think that character creation should be significant part in away so that YOU, the player, would feel connected to that character and pretend to be him/her/it. And so you role-play that character.

In my experience, it's the exact opposite for many people. Creating a character... removes them from the world, in a way. They aren't taking on a role that already exists in a world, with connections and immersive potential, they are pushing some idealized version of themselves into this alien world.

The TES games have always intentionally been about that, of course - it's part of their narrative, that you're the unnamed outsider entering this alien world, and building a character from scratch reinforces that - it breaks you out of the roleplaying and makes the game, intentionally, more sandboxy, by giving you more freedom to ignore your role completely. (See: The number of people who never even bother to complete the main quest, or who ignore it for large chunks of the game)

While a game like Planescape Torment gives you a lot of choices, and actually forces you to take on the role of the Nameless one. There's character customization, but it's not "be anyone you want!" but "express this role the way you see fit!" which seem, to me, two very different design choices.

[Mr. Strange]

snip

snip

Let's clear this up right now. I never spoke of character creation alone other than when I mentioned how it has been done in some cases (TES, D&D etc.) like it seems you have understood, but I've been constantly speaking about "character developement", specified that it's about developement troughout the game, not just when you start the game and maybe have character creation screen where you do your usual races, classes etc.. Keep that in mind and look back at the posts I've made and see if it makes more sense.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether you put ton of character customizing options at the begining of the game or spread them along the playtrough, it's all character developement. All of it. You start the game as something and and as the game progresses you become something else, even if there's options that make other options in the future more harder/easier right at the beginning of the game.

[Max White]

Even if it's not mechanical leveling and progression, there's gotta be something, or you're gonna have trouble convincing people you belong in the RPG genre, as far as I can tell. Counter-examples welcome.

The only things that really comes to mind are those old Choose your own Adventure books where very often you would start the game by drawing up your character sheet and choosing your items and spells and levels, and then a lot of them just had you go from there. But that begs the question, were these RPGs?

[Sergius]

Let's see, important parts of a RPG...

Lots of junk snacks. And soda.

Gazebos.

Attacking the darkness.

[Mr. Strange]

Bah, found the mistake in my own post. "Long, long time ago..." I forgot to mention games without character creation.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

There's a little note in the 1974 "original" D&D, that while these are the types of character laid out for you as standard, there's no reason why a player couldn't play anything - like a gold dragon - if the DM was willing, so long as the character started out very weak and had opportunity to grow stronger. I think that assumption carried over into later editions of D&D and as D&D inspired video game RPGs many of these assumptions carried over too.

If a character starts out weak and grows stronger, there must be some mechanical progression. I suppose you could play tricks like making the whole world weaker as the story progresses so that the player-character has no mechanical stat changes, but that's just beating the donkey on the other flank.

[Mr. Strange]

Especially since many of the best RPGs don't have character creation at all, forget character creation from scratch. (Many have class selection and the ability to make superficial modifications, but that's hardly "from scratch")

Here we go. I wrote something to the sort that I counted games where you start with "blank slate" and develop them through the game in my rant, but I can't find it anywhere... I must have deleted it without noticing. Seems it was my bad after all.

Edit: Damn typos...

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I've seen an argument that you shouldn't have any backstory in a 1st level character. What you do from levels 1-3 is your backstory. Besides, what are you gonna write down that's interesting at all but wouldn't have granted even 1 XP?

[GlyphGryph]

It's just question of how much of it is given at a time, is there actual character creation that fixes certain aspects at the begining or is the game defining and building your character constantly. Both can be RPG just as easily.

Maybe you are just... really bad at communicating. Because what you are saying there is character creation and fixing certain aspects but NOT defining and building your character constantly can "be an RPG just as easily" as the opposite.

If that's not actually what you mean, fine, I'll drop it, but that's what I was arguing against.

Well that and what I understood to be your essential argument that character creation is in any way even a strengthener, of a game being an RPG.

But I also mentioned that I wasn't entirely sure what your argument was, so perhaps you can explain it again for me?

I've seen an argument that you shouldn't have any backstory in a 1st level character. What you do from levels 1-3 is your backstory. Besides, what are you gonna write down that's interesting at all but wouldn't have granted even 1 XP?

The Nameless one has a LOT of backstory as a starting character. And almost no D&D game starts you at lv1.

It's assumed that most characters have an entire lifetime of backstory just to get to level 1. Level 1 is the "call to adventure" - it's the point where the character becomes, for the first time in their lives, a hero, no matter how weak of one. I'd argue there should be a LOT of backstory that goes into that.

Remember that most characters in the world, even the interesting ones, have no levels at all!

[Max White]

But I also mentioned that I wasn't entirely sure what your argument was, so perhaps you can explain it again for me?

I guess that a game where all the mechanics of your character, what abilities they have, is decided on character creation still counts as an RPG. What actually chose to do, however, is yet to be seen. One of the core features of these books is that you did get to choose your own adventure, to either cross the bridge or enter the cave, that was your choice (Even if it branched out in a very structured and deliberate manner) so that made it an RPG, at least in my eyes, without the need for any real change to your character.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I've seen an argument that you shouldn't have any backstory in a 1st level character. What you do from levels 1-3 is your backstory. Besides, what are you gonna write down that's interesting at all but wouldn't have granted even 1 XP?

The Nameless one has a LOT of backstory as a starting character. And almost no D&D game starts you at lv1.

It's assumed that most characters have an entire lifetime of backstory just to get to level 1. Level 1 is the "call to adventure" - it's the point where the character becomes, for the first time in their lives, a hero, no matter how weak of one. I'd argue there should be a LOT of backstory that goes into that.

Remember that most characters in the world, even the interesting ones, have no levels at all!

Nameless One is hardly a standard character - for one thing, he's immortal, he breaks the stat rules, the multiclassing rules, and his DM is entirely too generous with plot XP.

I always start new campaigns at level 1. The trick is to throw in more cool ideas instead of holding on to them for higher level, making low level play into more than "clear the cellar's rat problem".

I'd tend to agree that your "call to heroism" concept is worthwhile. But in 1E D&D you're talkin' the difference between a 0-level human and a 1st level Fighter ... there is some difference but they still both have 0 XP, which means 0 GP earned through adventure and exactly no monsters slain. You could postulate a 0-level version of each class - which has been done - for which you'd need say 500 XP to "earn" level 1. A 3E adventurer is different from an NPC commoner or aristocrat mainly in that his class is good rather than sucky. Still 0 XP, still level 1. That commoner may have killed plenty of cows, pigs, etc. but whatever the circumstances those weren't worthy of granting XP.

The problem stems from an assumption in Chainmail, carried forward, that each level of adventurer makes you equivalent to that many "normal men" - although because of class imbalances and magic items that was never really the case. Anyway, a level 1 adventurer is thus equivalent to 1 normal man, and until he gains some XP he isn't any better. 1974 D&D set Fighting-Men at slightly better than one Normal Man at level 1. But again, 0 XP. And a Normal Man wouldn't even be able to earn XP!

If anything, I'd write up a d100 table of "what made you want to become an adventurer" and have people roll on it for their 1st level characters. If you absolutely must have a unique and special snowflake (who is still just as likely as anyone else to fall into a 10' pit trap and die on the first game session) you still need to come up with a backstory that you can fit entirely on your character sheet and would have not granted any XP.

Which is to say, "I climbed a crazy mountain and negotiated with a dragon" is absolutely, positively, never going to happen in someone's Level 0 backstory because (1) that's the kind of shit you get up to as an adventurer, and (2) you're gonna be morose as hell when you can't repeat your backstory activities in actual gameplay because your character isn't a superhero. Alternately, put whatever you like in your backstory but be prepared to have everyone assume your character is lying.

[Mr. Strange]

Maybe you are just... really bad at communicating.

This. Wrong language (if you couldn't tell from bad grammar and spelling), too little sleep and not enough coffee.

The fixed aspects part was refering to D&D style of classes where you are stuck in a certain role, like mage not being able to learn major melee skills and fighter not becoming master mage, and developping your character from that starting point as the game goes on (focusing on summons or nuking, berserker or tank etc.), not character being unable to develop ever again after that point. Things like that are what I think makes RPGs, you're not just getting every skill, spell, quest and special item on one do-it-all character.

I'll shut up now and get some sleep.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Maybe you are just... really bad at communicating.

This. Wrong language (if you couldn't tell from bad grammar and spelling), too little sleep and not enough coffee.

The fixed aspects part was refering to D&D style of classes where you are stuck in a certain role, like mage not being able to learn major melee skills and fighter not becoming master mage, and developping your character from that starting point as the game goes on (focusing on summons or nuking, berserker or tank etc.), not character being unable to develop ever again after that point. Things like that are what I think makes RPGs, you're not just getting every skill, spell, quest and special item on one do-it-all character.

I'll shut up now and get some sleep.

OK, so you're saying something like, if you have the option of doing everything then you'll tend to do that, and every character will end up the same? I'd agree with that. Although generally he becomes "jack of all trades, master of none", or, ok at fighting and magic whereas he could be great at fighting but no magic, or great at magic but no fighting. Some games, like Morrowind for example, let you get to maximum skill in everything. If the game had a cap, like Ultima Online's 700 total skill (where 100 is max in one skill) you can kinda create your own "class" because you choose which things you can do and which you can't.

This is one gripe I had about 3E D&D. Let's say I need 1000 XP to get from level 1 to level 2, and learn the curriculum of Level 2 Wizard. Easy stuff, first level spells, etc. But if I'm a Fighter level 19 and I want to go to 20, but taking Level 1 Wizard (so I'm 19 Fighter / 1 Wizard) that 20th character level is very difficult to get! It's not just 1000 XP, it's (I believe) 19,000 XP. And each XP is harder to get because I ned to fight tougher monsters to make it happen. But in the end, I'm still getting no attack bonus, a tiny saves bonus, the same spellcasting ability of a Level 1 Wizard, the same crummy d4 Hit Points. So why is it harder for the experienced Fighter to learn the MOST EXTREME BASICS of being a Wizard? Why does knowing more about carpentry make it 19x harder to learn the basics of fly fishing?  It discourages multi classing, really, even though they made the process streamlined and easy to calculate. They had to fix the problem with feat bandaids.

But a system where you always need 1000 XP to get Level 1 Wizard no matter your level would require a "use your highest level" scheme rather than an additive scheme like 3E. You could, for example, level up to 3rd in Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric with 11,000 XP (starting at Level 1 for free but you need to spend 1k to get Lv1 in another class) vs. someone who spent that 11,000 XP on just Fighter and attaining level 5 (with 1000 to spare). The first character would fight as his best class (probably level 3 fighter) but also get spells as the 3rd level Wizard and various holy stuff as the 3rd level Cleric. He trades some fighting ability for variety in special abilities - which is how it was supposed to work.

[kaenneth]

I would say a 'true' RPG is where your choices in personal interactions with NPC's affect the game more than your choices in character stats/gear.

Where you can play a 'Character' instead of a collection of numbers.